Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MCWAY on May 26, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
-
First Obama tells his Hollywood buddies he can't advance his agenda, because of Rush, now THIS? You can't make foolishness like this up, if you tried.
Keep in mind that the IRS scandal came up about this time a year ago. Rush took his jabs at Fluke in late February, nearly THREE MONTHS EARLIER. Yet, the Times said the story on Rush dominated their news coverage.
As silly as it sounds, it does make a bit of sense, as the left-winged media hacks were just salivating at the bit, thinking Rush was going to get booted off the air.
A Sleeper Scandal Awakens for Obama, Post-Election
WASHINGTON — The allegations had all the makings of a perfect election-year scandal that might threaten President Obama’s chances for a second term and re-energize a listless Tea Party movement: an activist president, running an overbearing government, treating conservative groups unfairly by wielding the federal taxing power to undermine his adversaries.
But a year ago, when the current Internal Revenue Service scandal that has swirled around Mr. Obama first emerged, Washington — and, apparently, the White House — shrugged.
It was March 2012 and Tea Party groups around the country had been complaining for months of what they called an I.R.S. conspiracy to delay and disrupt their efforts to obtain tax-free status. A few Republicans in Congress expressed concern, sent letters to I.R.S. officials and scheduled a hearing.
Reporters wrote a handful of articles about the Tea Party allegations. A Louisiana Republican, Representative Charles Boustany Jr., held his hearing in Room 1100 of the Longworth Building. None of the Republican candidates for president seized on the allegations as big news.
For a White House typically equipped with well-honed political radar designed to sniff out and derail conservative conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama, the potentially damaging events at the I.R.S. seemed to pass with little notice.
“At the time, it was a dog-bites-man story,” said Matt Bennett, the senior vice president for public affairs at Third Way, a liberal policy group. “Tea Party complains about I.R.S. — that’s not interesting. There’s zero there that would capture anybody’s attention.”........
The Republican colleagues of Mr. Boustany did not seem particularly exercised about the potential for abuse either. There were no news conferences or major speeches on the House or Senate floors. Perhaps those who live in the nation’s capital can be excused for missing the potential import of the I.R.S. allegations because of everything else that was going on.
In the first week of March, Mitt Romney was locked in an existential struggle with Rick Santorum for the Republican presidential nomination. On March 6 — Super Tuesday — Mr. Romney barely won in Ohio even as he lost to his rival in Oklahoma and Tennessee, raising fresh doubts about his campaign.
In the same week, Rush Limbaugh, the conservative icon and radio host, called a Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” for her comments about the availability of birth control. The fallout from that consumed Washington, and Mr. Obama eventually called Ms. Fluke.[/color]
Congressional Republicans at the time appeared more focused on trying to pass legislation that would force Mr. Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that environmentalists bitterly oppose.
To others in the city’s political establishment, the Tea Party’s complaints seemed like conspiracy theories from the fringe. There had been plenty of I.R.S. accusations before, with accusers often seeking to elevate their complaints to the level of President Richard M. Nixon’s abuse of the tax agency to target his political enemies with audits during the Watergate scandal.
As The Huffington Post yawned in one of its only stories on the issue in March 2012: “Over the years, the I.R.S. has periodically been accused of political vendettas by liberals and conservatives alike, usually without merit, tax experts say.”
By contrast, the recent admission by I.R.S. officials that they did, in fact, target conservative groups has pushed the story into the scandal stratosphere. Republicans are now giving the hearings prime-time style billing. And the White House is fully engaged.
“ ‘I.R.S. Admits Targeting the Tea Party,’ ” said Mr. Bennett, of the Third Way. “That’s a story that Washington would take notice of.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/politics/a-sleeper-scandal-awakens-post-election.html?_r=0
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/media-blame-rush-limbaugh-in-irs-scandal/?cat_orig=politics
-
MORE SCANDALS GUYS
-
It was ignored because there was/is no scandal (other than the scandal of the abuse of the entire 501c4 status
Fact - no teabag party even needed to apply for tax exempt status hence no teabag group was prevented from taking any action during the election cylce
Fact - no teabag group was ever denied 501c4 status (and again, didn't need to wait for approval in the first place)
Fact - teabaggers were a weight around the neck of the Republican party so it's not like more teabag involvement would have helped the outcome of the election for Republicans (and again, these teabag groups were likely small group who were too stupid to even get competent legal council so what are the odds they were going to have any positive contribution to the outcome of the election for Repubs)
Fact - 501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it. How about some hearings about that
-
It was ignored because there was/is no scandal (other than the scandal of the abuse of the entire 501c4 status
Fact - no teabag party even needed to apply for tax exempt status hence no teabag group was prevented from taking any action during the election cylce
Fact - no teabag group was ever denied 501c4 status (and again, didn't need to wait for approval in the first place)
Fact - teabaggers were a weight around the neck of the Republican party so it's not like more teabag involvement would have helped the outcome of the election for Republicans (and again, these teabag groups were likely small group who were too stupid to even get competent legal council so what are the odds they were going to have any positive contribution to the outcome of the election for Repubs)
Fact - 501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it. How about some hearings about that
Fact - Lerner took the 5th. I wonder why....... I guess there is no there, there, so to say......
-
Fact - Lerner took the 5th. I wonder why....... I guess there is no there, there, so to say......
that certainly makes it look worse but doesn't change any of the facts I mentioned
btw - every application for 501c4 that is not exclusively for the promotion of social welfare should be DENIED
this would eliminate a large number of these bogus groups on both the left and the right
that is the real scandal here
-
that certainly makes it look worse but doesn't change any of the facts I mentioned
btw - every application for 501c4 that is not exclusively for the promotion of social welfare
this would eliminate a large number of these bogus groups on both the left and the right
that is the real scandal here
You aren't arguing facts. The devil is in the details. How did Shulman's IRS deal with these right wing groups differently than other groups? That is the issue. Why were they targeted? Why did they ask for the information they did not ask other groups for? If no problem, then why did they "plant" the question and answer? Why take the 5th?
-
It was ignored because there was/is no scandal (other than the scandal of the abuse of the entire 501c4 status
Fact - no teabag party even needed to apply for tax exempt status hence no teabag group was prevented from taking any action during the election cylce
Fact - no teabag group was ever denied 501c4 status (and again, didn't need to wait for approval in the first place)
Fact - teabaggers were a weight around the neck of the Republican party so it's not like more teabag involvement would have helped the outcome of the election for Republicans (and again, these teabag groups were likely small group who were too stupid to even get competent legal council so what are the odds they were going to have any positive contribution to the outcome of the election for Repubs)
Fact - 501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it. How about some hearings about that
They don't have to be denied in order to have the desired effect the libs wanted. All they had to do is be DELAYED, until Obama was safely re-elected.
The Tea Party was hardly a weight around the GOP's neck. Lest you forget, they're the ONLY REASON the GOP has the House in the first place.
4 million voters stayed out of this election. Romney got less than McCain did. And, it appears we have more insight as to why. Heck, the pastor the church I visited this past weekend claims he's getting audited for his 2010 tax returns. People who'd never been audited in their lives were getting investigated prostate-exam style.
Surprise, SURPRISE!!! Nearly all of them are conservative individuals or groups. The libs' 501s greased through with no problem.
-
You aren't arguing facts. The devil is in the details. How did Shulman's IRS deal with these right wing groups differently than other groups? That is the issue. Why were they targeted? Why did they ask for the information they did not ask other groups for? If no problem, then why did they "plant" the question and answer? Why take the 5th?
I don't know why she took the 5th
feel free to tell me which of the things I said was a fact are not true
-
Nyt playing to their readership who care only about twinks and women killing thei kids. Obama scandal and crimes - not so much.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323475304578501581991103070.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323475304578501581991103070.html)
Noonan: A Battering Ram Becomes a Stonewall
The IRS's leaders refuse to account for the agency's corruption and abuse.
"I don't know." "I don't remember." "I'm not familiar with that detail." "It's not my precise area." "I'm not familiar with that letter."
These are quotes from the Internal Revenue Service officials who testified this week before the House and Senate. That is the authentic sound of stonewalling, and from the kind of people who run Washington in the modern age—smooth, highly credentialed and unaccountable. They're surrounded by legal and employment protections, they know how to parse a careful response, they know how to blur the essential point of a question in a blizzard of unconnected factoids. They came across as people arrogant enough to target Americans for abuse and harassment and think they'd get away with it.
So what did we learn the past week, and what are the essentials to keep in mind?
We learned the people who ran and run the IRS are not going to help Congress find out what happened in the IRS. We know we haven't gotten near the bottom of the political corruption of that agency. We do not know who ordered the targeting of conservative groups and individuals, or why, or exactly when it began. We don't know who executed the orders or directives. We do not know the full scope or extent of the scandal. We don't know, for instance, how many applicants for tax-exempt status were abused.
We know the IRS commissioner wasn't telling the truth in March 2012, when he testified: "There's absolutely no targeting." We have learned that Lois Lerner lied when she claimed she had spontaneously admitted the targeting in a Q-and-A at a Washington meeting. It was part of a spin operation in which she'd planted the question with a friend. We know the tax-exempt bureau Ms. Lerner ran did not simply make mistakes because it was overwhelmed with requests—the targeting began before a surge in applications. And Ms. Lerner did not learn about the targeting in 2012—the IRS audit timeline shows she was briefed in June 2011. She said the targeting was the work of rogue agents in the Cincinnati office. But the Washington Post spoke to an IRS worker there, who said: "Everything comes from the top."
We know that Lois Lerner this week announced she'd done nothing wrong, and then took the Fifth.
And we know Jay Leno, grown interestingly fearless, said of the new IRS commissioner, "They're called 'acting commissioner' because you have to act like the scandal doesn't involve the White House."
But the most important IRS story came not from the hearings but from Mike Huckabee's program on Fox News Channel. He interviewed and told the story of Catherine Engelbrecht—a nice woman, a citizen, an American. She and her husband live in Richmond, Texas. They have a small manufacturing business. In the past few years she became interested in public policy and founded two groups, King Street Patriots and True the Vote.
In July 2010 she sent applications to the IRS for tax-exempt status. What followed was not the harassment, intrusiveness and delay we're now used to hearing of. The U.S. government came down on her with full force.
In December 2010 the FBI came to ask about a person who'd attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011 the FBI had more questions. The same month the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011 the FBI called again for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. In June 2011 Engelbrecht's personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. In October 2011 a round of questions on True the Vote. In November 2011 another call from the FBI. The next month, more questions from the FBI. In February 2012 a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote. In February 2012 a first round of questions on King Street Patriots. The same month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of her business. (It had a license to make firearms but didn't make them.) In July 2012 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012 more IRS questions on True the Vote. In March 2013, more questions. In April 2013 a second ATF audit.
All this because she requested tax-exempt status for a local conservative group and for one that registers voters and tries to get dead people off the rolls. Her attorney, Cleta Mitchell, who provided the timeline above, told me: "These people, they are just regular Americans. They try to get dead people off the voter rolls, you would think that they are serial killers."
This week Ms. Engelbrecht, who still hasn't received her exemptions, sued the IRS.
With all the talk and the hearings and the news reports, it is important to keep the essentials of this story in mind.
First, only conservative groups were targeted in this scandal by the IRS. Liberal or progressive groups were not targeted. The IRS leaked conservative groups' confidential applications and donor lists to liberal groups, never the other way around.
This was a political operation. If it had not been, then the statistics tell us left-wing groups would have been harassed and abused, and seen their applications leaked to the press. There would be a left-wing equivalent to Catherine Engelbrecht.
And all of this apparently took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. Meaning that before that election, groups that were anti-Obamacare, or pro-life, or pro-Second Amendment or constitutionalist, or had words like "tea party" or "patriot" in their name—groups that is that would support Republicans, not Democrats—were suppressed, thwarted, kept from raising money and therefore kept from fully operating.
That is some kind of coincidence. That is some kind of strangely political, strangely partisan, and strangely ideological "poor customer service."
IRS officials have complained that the law is murky, it's difficult to define what the tax exemption law really means. But they don't have any problem defining it. They defined it with a vengeance.
Second, it is important to remember that there has never been an investigation of what happened in the IRS. There was an internal IRS audit, not an investigation, carried out by an inspector general, who was careful this week to note to the House what he'd done was not an investigation. He was tasked to come to conclusions on whether there had been wrongdoing at the agency. It was not his job to find out exactly why it happened, how and when the scandal began, who was involved, and how they operated.
A dead serious investigation is needed. The IRS has colorfully demonstrated that it cannot investigate itself. The Obama administration wants the FBI—which answers to Eric Holder's Justice Department—to investigate, but that would not be credible. The investigators of the IRS must be independent of the administration, or their conclusions will not be trustworthy.
An independent counsel, with all the powers of that office, is what we need.
Again, if what happened at the IRS is not stopped now—if the internal corruption within it is not broken—it will never stop, and never be broken. The American people will never again be able to have the slightest confidence in the revenue-gathering arm of their government. And that, actually, would be tragic
-
feel free to tell me which of the things I said was a fact are not true
Sure...
Fact - no teabag party even needed to apply for tax exempt status hence no teabag group was prevented from taking any action during the election cylce
An irrelevant fact. The point is they did and, as such, the IRS has to treat all applicants equally.
Fact - no teabag group was ever denied 501c4 status (and again, didn't need to wait for approval in the first place)
True, but it's a child's argument. Continuously delaying and bullying groups served as a de facto denial for those who didn't have the resources to handle the nonsense.
Fact - teabaggers were a weight around the neck of the Republican party so it's not like more teabag involvement would have helped the outcome of the election for Republicans (and again, these teabag groups were likely small group who were too stupid to even get competent legal council so what are the odds they were going to have any positive contribution to the outcome of the election for Repubs)
No, that's called an opinion - one in which I agree with in that establishment Repubs didn't like the Tea Party. However, it is impossible to discern what 'might have been' should the circumstances been different.
Fact - 501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it. How about some hearings about that
No, that's called an opinion - and I would probably agree to some extent. The Citizens United decision appears to be the main enabler which basically makes these actions perfectly legal. But, now we're back to that whole can of worms, and buying elections, money, free speech, etc.
So, it's really 2 opinions, 1 irrelevant fact, and 1 fact which leads to a childish argument.
Pretty fair summation?
-
It was ignored because there was/is no scandal (other than the scandal of the abuse of the entire 501c4 status
Fact - no teabag party even needed to apply for tax exempt status hence no teabag group was prevented from taking any action during the election cylce
Fact - no teabag group was ever denied 501c4 status (and again, didn't need to wait for approval in the first place)
Fact - teabaggers were a weight around the neck of the Republican party so it's not like more teabag involvement would have helped the outcome of the election for Republicans (and again, these teabag groups were likely small group who were too stupid to even get competent legal council so what are the odds they were going to have any positive contribution to the outcome of the election for Repubs)
Fact - 501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it. How about some hearings about that
FACT - The Times is claiming that, among the reason this scandal was ignored, was the media's getting all worked up about Limbaugh, in all likelihood thinking he was going to get yanked off the air.
-
Sure...
An irrelevant fact. The point is they did and, as such, the IRS has to treat all applicants equally.
True, but it's a child's argument. Continuously delaying and bullying groups served as a de facto denial for those who didn't have the resources to handle the nonsense.
No, that's called an opinion - one in which I agree with in that establishment Repubs didn't like the Tea Party. However, it is impossible to discern what 'might have been' should the circumstances been different.
No, that's called an opinion - and I would probably agree to some extent. The Citizens United decision appears to be the main enabler which basically makes these actions perfectly legal. But, now we're back to that whole can of worms, and buying elections, money, free speech, etc.
So, it's really 2 opinions, 1 irrelevant fact, and 1 fact which leads to a childish argument.
Pretty fair summation?
well you at least conceded the first two statements were fact
the third statement is a fact, certainly by looking at the consensus of left, right and center during and immediately after the election and by the results of the election itself (especially the results of the teabag candidates) so that's 3 facts
The 4th could be called an opinion but if you look how Congress wrote the law you see that it said "not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." and the IRS has said that promoting social welfare doesn't include participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf
and now 40 years or so later we have, for example, political operatives forming 501c4's for the clear and obvious purpose of electing or defeating a specific candidate. Hence, they operate SOLELY for a political purpose which is completely contrary to the intent of this section of the tax code so I stand by my statement that the "501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it."
-
well you at least conceded the first two statements were fact
the third statement is a fact, certainly by looking at the consensus of left, right and center during and immediately after the election and by the results of the election itself (especially the results of the teabag candidates) so that's 3 facts
The 4th could be called an opinion but if you look how Congress wrote the law you see that it said "not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." and the IRS has said that promoting social welfare doesn't include participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf
and now 40 years or so later we have, for example, political operatives forming 501c4's for the clear and obvious purpose of electing or defeating a specific candidate. Hence, they operate SOLELY for a political purpose which is completely contrary to the intent of this section of the tax code so I stand by my statement that the "501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it."
No, just because others share your opinion, does not make it fact, lol.
Your inability to discern opinion from fact speaks louder than anything I can say.
As for the 501's, I agree. And such is the case when you have decisions like Citizens, or congresspeople saying that 'predominant' is defined as 50.1%.
But, what to do? I don't know how to get money out of politics, especially without trampling other people's freedom of speech.
-
No, just because others share your opinion, does not make it fact, lol.
Your inability to discern opinion from fact speaks louder than anything I can say.
As for the 501's, I agree. And such is the case when you have decisions like Citizens, or congresspeople saying that 'predominant' is defined as 50.1%.
But, what to do? I don't know how to get money out of politics, especially without trampling other people's freedom of speech.
the result of the election + the consensus of left,right and center on the damage caused by the teabaggers makes my 3rd statement a fact
the fourth statement is my opinion but given the documentation I provided, including the link to the IRS I'll stand by my 4th statement of "501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it." a fact
You can find many people who will agree that it's a verifiable fact that "501c4's are abused by both parties"
-
the result of the election + the consensus of left,right and center on the damage caused by the teabaggers makes my 3rd statement a fact
the fourth statement is my opinion but given the documentation I provided, including the link to the IRS I'll stand by my 4th statement of "501c4's are abused by both parties and the real scandal is that Congress has done NOTHING about it." a fact
You can find many people who will agree that it's a verifiable fact that "501c4's are abused by both parties"
And you'll find plenty of people who disagree - in fact, probably most people actually involved in a 501 wouldn't consider what they are doing abuse, lol.
Again, because others share your OPINION doesn't make it fact.
The 'fact' that you're not bright enough to discern fact from opinion is just par for the course.
lol
-
And you'll find plenty of people who disagree - in fact, probably most people actually involved in a 501 wouldn't consider what they are doing abuse, lol.
Again, because others share your OPINION doesn't make it fact.
The 'fact' that you're not bright enough to discern fact from opinion is just par for the course.
lol
again, I never said it that my opinion "made it a fact"
objective data makes it a fact and my opinion doesn't preclude it from being a fact as well
I can look an obese person and say in my opinion they are fat and my opinion can also be a fact
-
again, I never said it that my opinion "made it a fact"
objective data makes it a fact and my opinion doesn't preclude it from being a fact as well
I can look an obese person and say in my opinion they are fat and my opinion can also be a fact
Your 'objective data' is other OPINIONS. Not fact.
Here, let's break this down.
I think you're an idiot.
Others on here share my opinion.
So, according to your logic, you are in FACT, an idiot.
OK...I guess you're right. You win this one. I'll stop arguing.
-
Your 'objective data' is other OPINIONS. Not fact.
Here, let's break this down.
I think you're an idiot.
Others on here share my opinion.
So, according to your logic, you are in FACT, an idiot.
OK...I guess you're right. You win this one. I'll stop arguing.
the objective data is the result of the election for fact 3#
the objective data is the IRS code and then the contradictory IRS guidelines which created a massive loophole which is being used to allow political operatives to create non-profit organizations that are supposed to be set up exclusively for "social welfare" (fact per IRS code) and the IRS has said that promoting social welfare doesn't include participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." (fact per IRS publication which I gave a link to yesterday)
-
the objective data is the result of the election for fact 3#
the objective data is the IRS code and then the contradictory IRS guidelines which created a massive loophole which is being used to allow political operatives to create non-profit organizations that are supposed to be set up exclusively for "social welfare" (fact per IRS code) and the IRS has said that promoting social welfare doesn't include participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." (fact per IRS publication which I gave a link to yesterday)
No, your claim is the result of the election would have been the same even if the circumstances surrounding the election were different. That's called an OPINION. It's not even possible to prove such nonsense.
-
No, your claim is the result of the election would have been the same even if the circumstances surrounding the election were different. That's called an OPINION. It's not even possible to prove such nonsense.
I see the problem now, you're just making up shit and pretending I said it
Here is what I said - "teabaggers were a weight around the neck of the Republican party so it's not like more teabag involvement would have helped the outcome of the election"
I stand by that as my opinion and a verifiable fact based on the outcome of the election where teabaggers got stomped and dragged down the party.
If you don't want to call it a fact that's fine with me
If you want to pretend the opposite is true that's fine by me too
-
I see the problem now, you're just making up shit and pretending I said it
Here is what I said - "teabaggers were a weight around the neck of the Republican party so it's not like more teabag involvement would have helped the outcome of the election"
I stand by that as my opinion and a verifiable fact based on the outcome of the election where teabaggers got stomped and dragged down the party.
If you don't want to call it a fact that's fine with me
If you want to pretend the opposite is true that's fine by me too
Yeah, it's not you trying to pass off opinion as fact, it's me. ::)
Whatever floats your boat.
-
Yeah, it's not you trying to pass off opinion as fact, it's me. ::)
Whatever floats your boat.
an opinion can also be a fact and in my case my opinion (the two you are disputing - at least I think you are disputing them) are supported by verifiable facts
-
Yeah, it's not you trying to pass off opinion as fact, it's me. ::)
Whatever floats your boat.
Hahaha, he's taking a beating in this thread.
-
an opinion can also be a fact and in my case my opinion (the two you are disputing - at least I think you are disputing them) are supported by verifiable facts
You haven't supported anything with verifiable fact. It's impossible to know what might have been. The very notion is absurd. You've only offered opinions which agree with yours - as does my OPINION agrees with yours.
But, I'm bright enough to know that my OPINION is not FACT.
-
You haven't supported anything with verifiable fact. It's impossible to know what might have been. The very notion is absurd. You've only offered opinions which agree with yours - as does my OPINION agrees with yours.
But, I'm bright enough to know that my OPINION is not FACT.
sure I have
the results of the election are well known and completely support the fact that the tea party HARMED the Republicans
If you choose do believe they didn't harm the party or even helped them they you are certainly entitled to that delusion
let me guess, you didn't bother to read the IRS code I posted on 501c4 nor did you bother to look at the link I posted
-
sure I have
the results of the election are well known and completely support the fact that the tea party HARMED the Republicans
If you choose do believe they didn't harm the party or even helped them they you are certainly entitled to that delusion
let me guess, you didn't bother to read the IRS code I posted on 501c4 nor did you bother to look at the link I posted
Again, cause you're so slow, you are trying to claim the same election results with different circumstances.
Again, cause you're so slow, my opinion is an agreement with your opinion.
Again, cause you're so slow, your opinion and my opinion are not fact.
It's really not that hard...but I guess for you it is...
-
sure I have
the results of the election are well known and completely support the fact that the tea party HARMED the Republicans
If you choose do believe they didn't harm the party or even helped them they you are certainly entitled to that delusion
let me guess, you didn't bother to read the IRS code I posted on 501c4 nor did you bother to look at the link I posted
lol so correlation equals causation to you then?